Hi guys,
any thougths about what I wrote few days ago ?
Thanks,Paolo
Paolo PatiernoSenior Software Engineer
Windows Embedded & IoTMicrosoft Azure Insider
Twitter : @ppatierno
Linkedin : paolopatierno
Blog : DevExperienceBlog : Embedded101
> From: ppatie...@live.com
> To: users@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: RE: SASL mechanism different between 0.9.1 and 0.10
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 14:16:31 +0000
>
> Now it seems to work but with a little bit change inside Qpid Proton C
> library ...
> As I said the in "pni_process_mechanisms" function, the SASL mechanisms list
> received from server is parsed and if the EXTERNAL value is found then it is
> selected (the function return "true") even if we set the flag
> PN_FLAGS_ALLOW_INSECURE_MECHS (but I see that it is set by default in the
> messenger constructor).
> One solution could be to add another check on EXTERNAL found ...
> // Check whether offered EXTERNAL, PLAIN or ANONYMOUS
>
> // Look for "EXTERNAL" in mechs
>
> const char *found = strstr(mechs, EXTERNAL);
>
> // Make sure that string is separated and terminated and allowed
>
> if (found && (found==mechs || found[-1]==' ') && (found[8]==0 ||
> found[8]==' ') &&
>
> pni_included_mech(transport->sasl->included_mechanisms, pn_bytes(8,
> found))
> && !transport->sasl->allow_insecure_mechs)
>
> I added the !transport->sasl->allow_insecure_mechs so that even if the
> EXTERNAL is found but I want PLAIN, the parser goes forward to the next
> parsing on PLAIN text.
> Another solution could be to invert order between EXTERNAL check and PLAIN
> check.
> What do you think about that ?
> Thanks,Paolo.
>
> Paolo PatiernoSenior Software Engineer
>
>
> Windows Embedded & IoTMicrosoft Azure Insider
> Twitter : @ppatierno
> Linkedin : paolopatierno
> Blog : DevExperienceBlog : Embedded101
>
>
> > From: ppatie...@live.com
> > To: users@qpid.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: SASL mechanism different between 0.9.1 and 0.10
> > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 13:48:31 +0000
> >
> > I tried to set following ...
> > pn_messenger_set_flags(messenger, PN_FLAGS_ALLOW_INSECURE_MECHS);
> >
> > without any good result.
> > However in the pni_process_mechanisms function I see that if client
> > receives EXTERNAL from server in the SASL mechanisms list, this is the
> > first to be used even if I set the above flag.
> > Paolo.
> > Paolo PatiernoSenior Software Engineer
> >
> >
> > Windows Embedded & IoTMicrosoft Azure Insider
> > Twitter : @ppatierno
> > Linkedin : paolopatierno
> > Blog : DevExperienceBlog : Embedded101
> >
> >
> > To: users@qpid.apache.org
> > From: ppatie...@live.com
> > Subject: RE: SASL mechanism different between 0.9.1 and 0.10
> > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 20:52:50 +0200
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes Gordon ... You are right I'm speaking about messenger APIs
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my Windows Phone
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > Gordon Sim
> >
> > Sent:
> > 01/09/2015 20:39
> >
> > To:
> > users@qpid.apache.org
> >
> > Subject:
> > Re: SASL mechanism different between 0.9.1 and 0.10
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 09/01/2015 07:29 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> >
> > > You may have to modify the send example
> >
> >
> >
> > I suspect this is the send example using the messenger API. Is there a
> >
> > way to control the mechanisms used with that API?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
> >
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@qpid.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
